Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

Missouri still isn't leaving the SEC.

And pretty sure the GOR would prevent any of this from happening anyway.

(03-08-2017 01:26 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

Missouri still isn't leaving the SEC.

And pretty sure the GOR would prevent any of this from happening anyway.

As we approach the end of the Big 12's GOR things will really heat up. If you believe that schools are not "talking" now, I believe you would be mistaken.

And as to Missouri? It was said that Maryland was never leaving the ACC (a conference it helped found and had membership in for almost 60 years). Missouri has no such ties to the SEC, why would you think they would never leave? And the answer, "because it's the SEC" just doesn't fly.

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

WVU doesn't add anything substantial for the SEC. Not an AAU school, not a large market, not (currently) a national brand. Culturally, yes WVU fits in the SEC. So yes, I can imagine WVU is having talks with the SEC, but I don't know that these makes sense for the school. And OK/OK State is an option after the GOR without WVU.

As to Missouri to the Big 10, I simply ask why? The money is not significantly better. The academic prestige is nice, but does it on its own convince Mizzou to move? In addition, Mizzou has a better chance of rebuilding its basketball in the SEC and it can differentiate itself by being in that conference. As has been mentioned here before. SEC could also take OK/Kansas and give them a great rival to play. Then the SEC tournament final four could most years look like Florida-Kentucky/Missouri-Kansas. That seems pretty appealing to me.

(03-08-2017 10:33 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

WVU doesn't add anything substantial for the SEC. Not an AAU school, not a large market, not (currently) a national brand. Culturally, yes WVU fits in the SEC. So yes, I can imagine WVU is having talks with the SEC, but I don't know that these makes sense for the school. And OK/OK State is an option after the GOR without WVU.

As to Missouri to the Big 10, I simply ask why? The money is not significantly better. The academic prestige is nice, but does it on its own convince Mizzou to move? In addition, Mizzou has a better chance of rebuilding its basketball in the SEC and it can differentiate itself by being in that conference. As has been mentioned here before. SEC could also take OK/Kansas and give them a great rival to play. Then the SEC tournament final four could most years look like Florida-Kentucky/Missouri-Kansas. That seems pretty appealing to me.

Well for one: if the B1G doesn't opt for Missouri (AAU) and Kansas (AAU), then most likely they come after Oklahoma (brand) to pair with Nebraska (brand, former AAU) along with Kansas. Texas is still going to the ACC, so that leaves the SEC with only "little brothers" to complete western expansion.

Kansas to the SEC? It's not within the realm of possibility.

(03-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 01:26 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

Missouri still isn't leaving the SEC.

And pretty sure the GOR would prevent any of this from happening anyway.

As we approach the end of the Big 12's GOR things will really heat up. If you believe that schools are not "talking" now, I believe you would be mistaken.

And as to Missouri? It was said that Maryland was never leaving the ACC (a conference it helped found and had membership in for almost 60 years). Missouri has no such ties to the SEC, why would you think they would never leave? And the answer, "because it's the SEC" just doesn't fly.

Who said Maryland was never leaving the ACC? Anyone who thought that wasn't paying attention. There had been rumors of Maryland leaving for years.

Anyway, it's apples and oranges. You already know this, but for anyone that might be wondering...

1) Maryland left because they had financial issues and had an opportunity to make significantly more in the B1G

2) The best interests of the league had been set aside by Tobacco Road and crew in order to maintain a cohesive voting block.

3) Maryland, as a large state flagship, was a better fit for the B1G in the first place.

Now let's contrast the situations between Mizzou and Maryland. Missouri used to be in an unstable conference. There were rumors of them leaving for years. Some rumors had them going to the B1G and they did in fact try getting in. I even remember a rumor from the early 2000s about Mizzou wanting to go to the SEC.

So to recap, the SEC came calling and the rest is history. Missouri has found their stable conference. They have greater revenue now and at absolute best they would only make slightly more in the B1G. In the long term though, I doubt Mizzou would even make slightly more in the B1G due to demographic shifts and changing distribution models.

That and no one has explained to me yet why Mizzou, who only joined the SEC 5 years ago, would go to the trouble of integrating themselves into a new league of peer institutions only to leave a few short years later on a whim. And the answer "because it's the B1G" just doesn't fly.

Anyway, I do realize things will heat up near the end of the GOR, but it seems like that post from Luku was implying the "trigger" would apply at any time. I don't think it would work until there's a couple of years left.

(03-08-2017 10:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:33 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

WVU doesn't add anything substantial for the SEC. Not an AAU school, not a large market, not (currently) a national brand. Culturally, yes WVU fits in the SEC. So yes, I can imagine WVU is having talks with the SEC, but I don't know that these makes sense for the school. And OK/OK State is an option after the GOR without WVU.

As to Missouri to the Big 10, I simply ask why? The money is not significantly better. The academic prestige is nice, but does it on its own convince Mizzou to move? In addition, Mizzou has a better chance of rebuilding its basketball in the SEC and it can differentiate itself by being in that conference. As has been mentioned here before. SEC could also take OK/Kansas and give them a great rival to play. Then the SEC tournament final four could most years look like Florida-Kentucky/Missouri-Kansas. That seems pretty appealing to me.

Well for one: if the B1G doesn't opt for Missouri (AAU) and Kansas (AAU), then most likely they come after Oklahoma (brand) to pair with Nebraska (brand, former AAU) along with Kansas. Texas is still going to the ACC, so that leaves the SEC with only "little brothers" to complete western expansion.

Kansas to the SEC? It's not within the realm of possibility.

So many assumptions, so few facts.

I still love you though...even if you are hard-headed.

(03-08-2017 10:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:33 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

WVU doesn't add anything substantial for the SEC. Not an AAU school, not a large market, not (currently) a national brand. Culturally, yes WVU fits in the SEC. So yes, I can imagine WVU is having talks with the SEC, but I don't know that these makes sense for the school. And OK/OK State is an option after the GOR without WVU.

As to Missouri to the Big 10, I simply ask why? The money is not significantly better. The academic prestige is nice, but does it on its own convince Mizzou to move? In addition, Mizzou has a better chance of rebuilding its basketball in the SEC and it can differentiate itself by being in that conference. As has been mentioned here before. SEC could also take OK/Kansas and give them a great rival to play. Then the SEC tournament final four could most years look like Florida-Kentucky/Missouri-Kansas. That seems pretty appealing to me.

Well for one: if the B1G doesn't opt for Missouri (AAU) and Kansas (AAU), then most likely they come after Oklahoma (brand) to pair with Nebraska (brand, former AAU) along with Kansas. Texas is still going to the ACC, so that leaves the SEC with only "little brothers" to complete western expansion.

Kansas to the SEC? It's not within the realm of possibility.

BIG can take Kansas (AAU) and Iowa State (AAU) if it wants.

Though I wonder if Texas would actually go to ACC, I'll leave that part alone and focus on the triggers to make it happen.

In terms of the SEC being left with "little brothers" no expansion is better than bad expansion.

And I certainly believe Kansas to the SEC is in the realm of possibility. Maybe not in the realm of likely or probably but as a possibility it should at least be considered. Kansas adds a new state (though small, and it doubles down on the Kansas City market), another AAU school, a basketball powerhouse, and a rival for Mizzou that is also contiguous and hurts a BIG southern expansion since OK would then be non-contiguous. In addition, Kansas would not immediately mess up the power structure of football. Kentucky might be upset it can no longer dominate SEC basketball, but the KY-Kansas matchup each year and potential tournament matchup would be a huge ratings grab.

My guess is the SEC presidents would take Kansas over WVU 9/10 times. Not trying to be mean to any WVU fans on the board at all, btw. My guess is if we want WVU it will be there for us later or as a solid backup.

Kansas/OK would be a great expansion pair for the SEC. Again, "possibility" even if not likely (likely is OK/State to SEC with Kansas+? to Big 10).

(03-08-2017 10:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:33 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

WVU doesn't add anything substantial for the SEC. Not an AAU school, not a large market, not (currently) a national brand. Culturally, yes WVU fits in the SEC. So yes, I can imagine WVU is having talks with the SEC, but I don't know that these makes sense for the school. And OK/OK State is an option after the GOR without WVU.

As to Missouri to the Big 10, I simply ask why? The money is not significantly better. The academic prestige is nice, but does it on its own convince Mizzou to move? In addition, Mizzou has a better chance of rebuilding its basketball in the SEC and it can differentiate itself by being in that conference. As has been mentioned here before. SEC could also take OK/Kansas and give them a great rival to play. Then the SEC tournament final four could most years look like Florida-Kentucky/Missouri-Kansas. That seems pretty appealing to me.

Well for one: if the B1G doesn't opt for Missouri (AAU) and Kansas (AAU), then most likely they come after Oklahoma (brand) to pair with Nebraska (brand, former AAU) along with Kansas. Texas is still going to the ACC, so that leaves the SEC with only "little brothers" to complete western expansion.

Kansas to the SEC? It's not within the realm of possibility.

The only conference to expand with little brothers is the ACC: Louisville, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Pitt all qualify. Syracuse is unique, and B.C. is the only decent FBS school playing football in Massachusetts so those are the exceptions. Miami was a brand but hardly the top school in Florida.

Let's see the SEC has taken Missouri and Arkansas (not only flagship status, but only child status). They have taken South Carolina (flagship status but certainly one of two in South Carolina). And we have taken Texas A&M (a little brother, but a rival little brother to Texas, and a school designated as a flagship by its state legislature).

So yeah, I really buy the concept that a conference which is making 5 million more per school on average in total athletic revenue than the Big 10, averages more in football attendance than the Big 10 (by 11,000 per game), is neck and neck with the ACC in basketball attendance (in spite of lousy basketball), and leads the NCAA in baseball attendance, and has vowed to only take "crown jewels" (Slive and Bernie Machen's words) in realignment, and which is still the dominant athletic conference (excluding Buffy & Jody sports, e.g. lacrosse), would even sniff at the idea of taking two little brothers just to help out the Yankees and a bunch of country club brats. If we don't land a jewel we won't be taking anybody (the only possible exception being T.C.U.)!

And as for Texas, I'll bet you a +3 in rep that the Horns don't go to the ACC without at least a couple of buddies in tow! The best shot at reaching economic parity that the ACC ever had was the one you rejected. If you are ever going to make SEC money it will be because the ACC is merged into the SEC to form a league controlled by ESPN. ESPN definitely won't be adopting the ACC/Big 10 merger plan. And the SEC won't be merging with the Big 12. We only need 2 or 3 pieces out of the Big 12 to have a division that could titled "Big 12's Greatest Hits". I don't see any little brothers in that future either.

And if you want to talk about a cultural impossibility, it would be league formed by the SEC and the PAC. Duke's of Hazard meets Silicon Valley just ain't happening! But whatever you were smoking X must be dandy stuff!

(03-08-2017 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:33 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

WVU doesn't add anything substantial for the SEC. Not an AAU school, not a large market, not (currently) a national brand. Culturally, yes WVU fits in the SEC. So yes, I can imagine WVU is having talks with the SEC, but I don't know that these makes sense for the school. And OK/OK State is an option after the GOR without WVU.

As to Missouri to the Big 10, I simply ask why? The money is not significantly better. The academic prestige is nice, but does it on its own convince Mizzou to move? In addition, Mizzou has a better chance of rebuilding its basketball in the SEC and it can differentiate itself by being in that conference. As has been mentioned here before. SEC could also take OK/Kansas and give them a great rival to play. Then the SEC tournament final four could most years look like Florida-Kentucky/Missouri-Kansas. That seems pretty appealing to me.

Well for one: if the B1G doesn't opt for Missouri (AAU) and Kansas (AAU), then most likely they come after Oklahoma (brand) to pair with Nebraska (brand, former AAU) along with Kansas. Texas is still going to the ACC, so that leaves the SEC with only "little brothers" to complete western expansion.

Kansas to the SEC? It's not within the realm of possibility.

The only conference to expand with little brothers is the ACC: Louisville, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Pitt all qualify. Syracuse is unique, and B.C. is the only decent FBS school playing football in Massachusetts so those are the exceptions. Miami was a brand but hardly the top school in Florida.

Let's see the SEC has taken Missouri and Arkansas (not only flagship status, but only child status). They have taken South Carolina (flagship status but certainly one of two in South Carolina). And we have taken Texas A&M (a little brother, but a rival little brother to Texas, and a school designated as a flagship by its state legislature).

So yeah, I really buy the concept that a conference which is making 5 million more per school on average in total athletic revenue than the Big 10, averages more in football attendance than the Big 10 (by 11,000 per game), is neck and neck with the ACC in basketball attendance (in spite of lousy basketball), and leads the NCAA in baseball attendance, and has vowed to only take "crown jewels" (Slive and Bernie Machen's words) in realignment, and which is still the dominant athletic conference (excluding Buffy & Jody sports, e.g. lacrosse), would even sniff at the idea of taking two little brothers just to help out the Yankees and a bunch of country club brats. If we don't land a jewel we won't be taking anybody (the only possible exception being T.C.U.)!

And as for Texas, I'll bet you a +3 in rep that the Horns don't go to the ACC without at least a couple of buddies in tow! The best shot at reaching economic parity that the ACC ever had was the one you rejected. If you are ever going to make SEC money it will be because the ACC is merged into the SEC to form a league controlled by ESPN. ESPN definitely won't be adopting the ACC/Big 10 merger plan. And the SEC won't be merging with the Big 12. We only need 2 or 3 pieces out of the Big 12 to have a division that could titled "Big 12's Greatest Hits". I don't see any little brothers in that future either.

And if you want to talk about a cultural impossibility, it would be league formed by the SEC and the PAC. Duke's of Hazard meets Silicon Valley just ain't happening! But whatever you were smoking X must be dandy stuff!

I don't smoke anything JR and you're being kind to the SEC by elevating it to Dukes of Hazzard status.

BTW I am still of the opinion that Notre Dame will stay semi-independent at least until the end of the current contract.
I think you are correct and that either Baylor or TCU could/would accompany Texas (but not both). Baylor is about the same size as Syracuse (14,000-16,000) and TCU is about the same size as Duke (6,000-9,000).
Rice is also a possibility (about 25% smaller than Wake Forest).
Texas has a long history with all three.

(03-08-2017 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW I am still of the opinion that Notre Dame will stay semi-independent at least until the end of the current contract.
I think you are correct and that either Baylor or TCU could/would accompany Texas (but not both). Baylor is about the same size as Syracuse (14,000-16,000) and TCU is about the same size as Duke (6,000-9,000).
Rice is also a possibility (about 25% smaller than Wake Forest).
Texas has a long history with all three.

Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

(03-08-2017 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW I am still of the opinion that Notre Dame will stay semi-independent at least until the end of the current contract.
I think you are correct and that either Baylor or TCU could/would accompany Texas (but not both). Baylor is about the same size as Syracuse (14,000-16,000) and TCU is about the same size as Duke (6,000-9,000).
Rice is also a possibility (about 25% smaller than Wake Forest).
Texas has a long history with all three.

Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

JR,

The hogs just announced they are replacing Michigan with Colorado State in 18-19 seasons. I think you were downwind of Fort Collins before ya wrote that post.

(03-08-2017 07:10 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW I am still of the opinion that Notre Dame will stay semi-independent at least until the end of the current contract.
I think you are correct and that either Baylor or TCU could/would accompany Texas (but not both). Baylor is about the same size as Syracuse (14,000-16,000) and TCU is about the same size as Duke (6,000-9,000).
Rice is also a possibility (about 25% smaller than Wake Forest).
Texas has a long history with all three.

Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

JR,

The hogs just announced they are replacing Michigan with Colorado State in 18-19 seasons. I think you were downwind of Fort Collins before ya wrote that post.

It's going to be real slow for about 6 years, so......

(03-08-2017 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW I am still of the opinion that Notre Dame will stay semi-independent at least until the end of the current contract.
I think you are correct and that either Baylor or TCU could/would accompany Texas (but not both). Baylor is about the same size as Syracuse (14,000-16,000) and TCU is about the same size as Duke (6,000-9,000).
Rice is also a possibility (about 25% smaller than Wake Forest).
Texas has a long history with all three.

Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

JR this is one of your better ideas............but it won't work.
I like the mix, the ACC gets better access to Atlanta, and the Georgia Tech fans have died and gone to heaven.
We get rid of the most delusional fans in the world the live for and thrive on pure hate. They really are not a pleasant bunch.
Vanderbilt....an academic peer....Nashville (it isn't New Orleans, but Tulane can't match Vandy athletics).
Texas...$$$$.

Here is the problem. In the world of cost cutting, budget constraints politics will raise it's ugly head, plus athletic directors cry about travel.
A lot is made about Duke being only 8 miles from Carolina. But NC State is 26 miles down the road (only 21 miles to their football stadium and basketball arena), and it's even closer for Duke. Winston-Salem (Wake Forest) maybe 85-90 miles from the Raleigh campus. UVa is 3.5 hrs and Virginia Tech about the same (bus trips/really short plane rides).
If you can convince the athletic directors....I'm still listening.

Now you people know why I post crazy scenarios all the time. I lost my patience with reality a long time ago.

(03-08-2017 08:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  BTW I am still of the opinion that Notre Dame will stay semi-independent at least until the end of the current contract.
I think you are correct and that either Baylor or TCU could/would accompany Texas (but not both). Baylor is about the same size as Syracuse (14,000-16,000) and TCU is about the same size as Duke (6,000-9,000).
Rice is also a possibility (about 25% smaller than Wake Forest).
Texas has a long history with all three.

Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

JR this is one of your better ideas............but it won't work.
I like the mix, the ACC gets better access to Atlanta, and the Georgia Tech fans have died and gone to heaven.
We get rid of the most delusional fans in the world the live for and thrive on pure hate. They really are not a pleasant bunch.
Vanderbilt....an academic peer....Nashville (it isn't New Orleans, but Tulane can't match Vandy athletics).
Texas...$$$$.

Here is the problem. In the world of cost cutting, budget constraints politics will raise it's ugly head, plus athletic directors cry about travel.
A lot is made about Duke being only 8 miles from Carolina. But NC State is 26 miles down the road (only 21 miles to their football stadium and basketball arena), and it's even closer for Duke. Winston-Salem (Wake Forest) maybe 85-90 miles from the Raleigh campus. UVa is 3.5 hrs and Virginia Tech about the same (bus trips/really short plane rides).
If you can convince the athletic directors....I'm still listening.

There's no doubt that Tobacco Road would be against it but I think every other ACC member would accept that deal in a heartbeat. GT? Could Virginia be persuaded?

(03-08-2017 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

Then, the B1G engulfs the ACC and Oklahoma flips to the B1G. The B1G and SEC divide the PAC. Notre Dame finally commits to a conference.

(03-14-2017 03:23 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now what I'm about to say falls into the purely unreal category (and not what I would want personally), but if I was the commissioner of the ACC and the head of ESPN I think I would work out something like this to offer to the SEC:

Auburn, Vanderbilt, and Texas head to the ACC. In return the SEC gets Kansas, Oklahoma and N.C. State and West Virginia. Notre Dame remains an independent and now you have two conferences that are essentially equivalent. The end of season rivalries are now the cream of the crop Texas / A&M, Auburn / Alabama, Vanderbilt / Tennessee, Florida / Florida State, Georgia / Georgia Tech, Louisville / Kentucky, North Carolina / N.C. State, and WVU/Pitt.

The ACC gets more football gravitas. Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get an old rival back to boost ticket sales. Auburn keeps both Georgia and Alabama as out of conference games. Florida keeps both Florida State and Miami as out of conference games. The SEC lands Oklahoma to replace Auburn, Kansas to replace Vanderbilt, and gets a Eastern markets with N.C. State & WVU. IMO N.C. State makes WVU more valuable. And the ACC becomes more Southeastern in makeup and entry into two more states to recruit one of which is solid.

Now I don't want Auburn in the ACC but if you want to set up competitive conferences to boost TV ratings all season long something like this would be a smart move. Now if anything like this ever gets done, IMO, it will be under a league concept with a merger.

But I'm just throwing this out for a new line of discussion. Geographically it makes more sense to swap brands between ESPN properties than it does to suggest that something similar could ever occur between the holdings of separate networks.

Then, the B1G engulfs the ACC and Oklahoma flips to the B1G. The B1G and SEC divide the PAC. Notre Dame finally commits to a conference.

The Big 10 is not nearly in as favorable a position with sports moving forward as the SEC. They have to average 5 million more in TV rights (which they don't) just to break even with the SEC in overall revenue per school.

The CIC is nice but it doesn't get you grants, just gets you to share them, and it doesn't give you membership in AAU. That is purely up to the school applying.

In the end they are still fine schools but in a region that is still bleeding opportunities outside of its major cities. And because of the population shifts they are slowly losing representation and have to recruit the South and West coast to compete. What they have that the SEC has also is passion.

If Oklahoma ever says hello to the Big 10 it will be the last time you hear about them in athletics. None of their recruits come from the North and they depend upon Texas and California connections to compete.

I have to think that with the next round of TV contracts that some of the ACC schools will start looking around for 2034.

What's lost in all of this is that really only Texas could give the Big 10 enough to be worth taking. Kansas is likely below their ability to get into the Big 10 when the Big 10 payouts are at 42 Million plus. The BTN already has solid markets in Kansas and the Big 10 isn't basketball poor. Oklahoma gives them some football gravitas but doesn't multiply its value as it would in the SEC.

My bet is that the Big 10 waits and goes after either a close association with the PAC, or they once again make a play for Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame, and even possibly Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

The SEC could easily finish out with Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, Oklahoma & Georgia Tech if the Big 10 made a big push East.

A fourth conference would form out of the best of the G5 and the rest of the left behind P4.

New P4 Conference:
Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville
East Carolina, Memphis, Navy, Wake Forest, West Virginia
Air Force, B.Y.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, Miami, South Florida

The PAC could then add Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, one of the Nevada's, New Mexico and either stop 18 or add two more. If they took Iowa State and Oklahoma State from the new P4 then that conference adds Colorado State or possibly North Dakota.

But you get the general idea. Both the SEC and Big 10 would profit the most out of the ACC. The PAC's only real options are a few local G5's to promote and the present members of the Big 12.

(03-08-2017 07:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 01:26 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Luku on dirt burglars speculates that the "trigger" to allow several schools in the Big 12 to escape their little brothers will be: the SEC offering West Virginia or the B1G offering Missouri or UConn.
Since Texas does not want to be the "bad guy" and will not move first, I think the SEC invites West Virginia.....Texas declares the conference to be unstable and accepts an invitation from the ....yep, you guessed it..the ACC.
The B1G with Texas off of the market settles for the safe AAU choices and invites Missouri and Kansas, which leaves the SEC free to add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State/Texas Tech.
By the time the news reaches the west coast....it's all over
If the SEC chooses Oklahoma State would the PAC take a look at Texas schools or even consider BYU?

Missouri still isn't leaving the SEC.

And pretty sure the GOR would prevent any of this from happening anyway.

As we approach the end of the Big 12's GOR things will really heat up. If you believe that schools are not "talking" now, I believe you would be mistaken.

And as to Missouri? It was said that Maryland was never leaving the ACC (a conference it helped found and had membership in for almost 60 years). Missouri has no such ties to the SEC, why would you think they would never leave? And the answer, "because it's the SEC" just doesn't fly.

The answer to your last comment is Yes, Mizzou will not leave because it is "The SEC" To turn the argument around a little, now that Maryland has dissolved it's 60 year ties to the ACC for the B1G, would they now be enticed to the SEC? The answer is No. It is No for Missouri as well.